Boey_Jarton

You have misunderstood my point. I am suggesting that clubs that do have owner loans can make arguments as to what the fair value of those loans are and this is open to interpretation in a way that is not entirely dissimilar to commercial sponsorships. In turn, I predict that policing the value of owner loans (alongside commercial deals and PSR more generally) will become an almost impossible, bureaucratic process. A loan is a financial instrument involving two parties and is priced based on a multitude of factors, some of which are not 'market based' but very specific to the two parties involved and the exact structure of the debt instrument that is being used. Different clubs have different risk profiles and do not have the same cost of capital. Private debt can also come in many forms - it can mature over an infinite number of time horizons, it may include covenants, it may be secured against assets, it may involve options to covert it into equity. You cannot simply go to Barclays and get a like-for-like market quote for this asset class. By 'internal' I am referring to corporation tax purposes. The preparation of corporation tax is an internal finance process (although sometimes outsourced to accountancy firms). Tax accounting does not purport to represent financial sustainability, it is simply applying financial transactions to written rules which are set by an independent body (Government). Thanks for suggesting my post was 'nonsense'. I comment regularly on PSR/financial matters because it is one of the few areas in life where I am hopefully well placed to offer some interesting viewpoints. As a boring Chartered Accountant of 20 years, I am one of the few saddos on here that really enjoys this topic.

If you think the market value of a loan is as simple as referencing bank market rates then you are mistaken. Of course such an approach can be taken for internal purposes (generally for the purposes of the corporation tax adjustment to avoid companies artificially shifting profits overseas) but that is fundamentally different to assessing fair value for the purposes of assessing ongoing profit and sustainability, where the substance of the transaction is the only thing that matters. Your suggestion is exactly the kind of simplistic approach that the premier league might take, and it would lead to a legal minefield.

The majority of football journalists are financially illiterate. Jacob Whitehead completely misses the point. Man City have proven that financing activities (i.e. owner loans) need to be in scope of APT, otherwise they are unlawful. I.e. they have proven that the premier league cannot just arbitrarily pick and choose which transactions are under the scope of APT and which are not, based on nothing more, than what suits certain clubs at a particular point in time. This casts a major shadow over PSR and undermines the whole concept. Many clubs could be plunged into PSR deficits (e.g. Brighton). How on earth can they determine the fair value of a loan to each club? The fair value of a loan is based on the risk free rate plus a margin to compensate the investor for risk. Risk is based on a multitude of factors (market based risk, the risk of default) that are bespoke to each transaction. The premier league would need to create a cottage industry just to assess owner loans and related party commercial deals, and even then , every single decision they make could be challenged as there is no right or wrong answer.

Samuel's article is excellent and surprisingly well researched. The point you make here " how can they fairly introduce shareholder loans into PSR" is exactly the problem and why Samuel thinks PSR is in the bin. However they do it, there could be an endless backlash of legal battles. Clubs without shareholder loans will argue they should be given retrospective headroom, clubs with shareholder loans will argue that they structured finance in this way based on the rules at the time. Samuel also hits the nail on the head on 'fair value commercial deals'. It is economically flawed to value a commercial deal based on historical deals. NEOM Vs McEwan's larger is an extreme example, but demonstrates that the fair market value of a commercial deal is entirely dependent on the two parties involved. Expect City to sue for lost earnings due to their delayed deals. In short, it's a buggers muddle - the PL have tied themselves in knots and the more regulations they introduce, the more they will keep tying themselves in knots. The PL have already spent £100m on legal fees and I expect this distraction is their number one priority when they should be focused on growing the product.

I've noticed this and it equally applies to some of his long range passing. Possibly a futsal thing. Doesn't seem to use any backlift.

A few sloppy passes yesterday but some encouraging signs that we have a lot more control in midfield with him in there. He is some excellent attributes - always available for the central defenders, , constantly moving into space, recycles possession, whilst also being a tenacious little fucker. Actually thought Longstaff looked surprisingly sharp and fresh when he came on so the competition helps in that context too.

Everton have been dog shit since the penalty

Exactly , it is not a fatigue issue and so a short number of successive games in a reasonably short time period is exactly what Tonali needed to get up to speed. I am confused by this line up but Eddie has proved me wrong in the past.

Eddie gets it right more often than not, but I am very surprised at Murphy/Longstaff over Tonali/Barnes. We never seem to see our most technical players on the same pitch together and it is highly frustrating.

He is a solid player and decent prospect but he is worth more to Forest than he is to Newcastle at this time and so it makes perfect sense to sell given the PSR world we operate in. Minteh is different because we actually need a right winger and so his value to our squad would have potentially been very high.

At the risk of sounding like Dennis Wise, there is a full compilation on twitter of Sandro's performance and it is very encouraging. So brave on the ball and great combination of power and pace.

Murphy suring things up since coming on.

The most obvious goal ever. Was just waiting for it before the 60 minute substitute

If pen is given it's not getting overturned but refs don't give these any more as they can rely on VAR as a bail out

That was a shot

From the Forest forum. "We've got one here, one of the first names on the team sheet now. I can't believe Newcastle chose to get rid of him and keep Longstaff"

Like this guy a lot. Strong, good technique and a lot quicker than I had expected, given his reputation as a one-two merchant

Played well but the correct decision to sell him

Credit where its due, class penalty. Never looked like missing

Corners have been abysmal

Dirk Kuyt springs to mind

Newcastle's sportswash-driven attempt to sign Guehi rightly thwarted by champions-elect

Definitely one for the unpopular opinions thread but I generally think Hurst comes across ok when he discusses NUFC in the media. The idea that he is a credible interviewee for the i newspaper is completely ridiculous mind!!

Whilst there is obvious logic in improving our 2nd keeper, it is hard to get excited by any signing that isn't decreasing the probability of Murphy, Almiron, Longstaff or Krafth getting extended game time.